warhammer40kfandomcom-20200222-history
Warhammer 40k talk:Allowable Content
Needed policies We need to set up some guidelines for content inclusion, the following two are things I've come up with: Game Rules Game stats and rules should not be included. Including them directly violates GW's IP rights, and does so in a way that may hurt their business (and therefore make them sue us). Any thoughts on this? --Falcorian (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC) :Game companies are very touchy when it comes to Intellectual Property rights. I think that it is better to be cautious and safe than to risk a legal response in the future. Another reason for not posting game stats and mechanics is they are always in flux. --Futhark 02:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Equipment pages We've imported a few of these pages from Wikipedia, for example: Weapons, equipment, and vehicles of the Necrons. I think we should probably split these into individual pages, one for each item. We have no need to save space because we're not trying to dodge Wikipedia Notability requirements. Thoughts? --Falcorian (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC) :This sounds like a good idea to me Some pages are growing past the maximum file size allowed. Perhaps we need a style guide for the presentational structure of entries. --Futhark 02:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC) ::I think a style guide would be an excellent idea. --Falcorian (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Fan-Made content Should there be a policy on fan-made content? I noticed the list of space marine chapters has a lot of this. --Switchbreak 16:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Personally I think fan generated material should not have the same weight as canon. maybe a link on the list for fan-made chapters is in order. But that is just MHO. --Futhark 23:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC) I'm against fan made chapters and characters. I think we should focus on just the canon material. --Falcorian (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Transwiki Another question: What do you guys think should be done when the Wikipedia article is more detailed than an already existing article on here? Should it be copied over the existing article, or should current content be preserved? Switchbreak 13:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Good question, I would come down on the side of informational conservation. That is not to say that the page as a whole needs to be preserved. It depends on the case at hand. There may be information that needs to be merged with the transwiki material, or sections that can become stand alone pages linked from the new article. I would like to hear more from senior members to get their opinion on this issue. --Futhark 09:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC) I've been importing them, mainly to save them from deletion on Wikipedia. I think in generally they're better written and more comprehensive because they have far more page views (and hence more people working on them). Of course, the history remains so it's easy to merge the two if that's what people want. --Falcorian (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC) umm i heard that you guys are NOT accepting any more fan-art, you might want to revise this.Sahron (talk) 16:35, October 16, 2013 (UTC)